Since these quotes are not from a single source, as was
the case in the original Quote Mine Project, there are some
differences in how they are organized. Before each quote
there appears in brackets a brief description of the
Editor's impression of the proposition that the quotes are
cited for by creationists. That is followed by at least one
link to a creationist site using the quote mine. Naturally,
these descriptions cannot be exhaustive and are only as
accurate as any impression. By all means, you are
encouraged to check for yourself as to creationist usage of
the quotes. The easiest way to do so is to go to the
Google Advanced Search page and, in the "Find results"
box designated "with the exact phrase," enter a short, but
distinctive, phrase from the quote mine and click on the
"Search" button. Of course, if you are here researching a
particular use of a quote, you will already have an idea of
how it is being used.

The numbering of the quotes is different as well. While
the original set of quote mines was numbered simply 1 - 86,
these are numbered 4.1, 4.2, . . . etc.

Quote #4.1

[Life appears full blown, complex and without precursors
in the fossil record]

"There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the
question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no
transition to other arthropods." - Frank M. Carpenter,
"Fossil Insects," Insects (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 18.

A detailed study of the geological history of the
insects, which I have only sketched, yields evidence of
certain progressive changes in structure and development
which confirm conclusions on insect evolution reached by
morphological and embryological investigations. Although
this is still a highly controversial subject, we have
enough evidence at hand, derived from these three sources,
to indicate the main steps in insect evolution. There is, however, no fossil evidence
bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest
insects known show no transition to other arthropods.
On the other hand, morphological and embryological studies
carried out mainly since 1935 have pointed to the probable
origin of the insects from some terrestrial arthropod,
related to the existing Symphyla. The time of that origin
is pure conjecture, but judging from the fossil record we
can only conclude that it was at least as far back as the
Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian).

Strictly speaking, this quote is not taken out of
context, but note that other evidence, which Carpenter
feels is relevant to the question of insect evolution, such
as morphological and embryological studies, is ignored.
It's a common mistake of creationists to believe that the
only evidence for evolution is from the fossil record, but
obviously Carpenter didn't think so, and neither does any
other informed advocate of evolution. But it may never have
occurred to the quote miner to ponder what Carpenter meant
by "morphological and embryological studies", or to wonder
how they were relevant to evolution.

But is it true that there is no fossil evidence for the
evolution of insects? Perhaps in Carpenter's day, but now
transitional forms are known all the way back to 400
million years ago.

Kukalová-Peck, J. 1991. "Fossil History and the
Evolution of Hexapod Structures" in The Insects of
Australia: A textbook for students and research
workers, second edition, volume 1, pp. 141-179.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

- Jon (Augray) Barber

Quote #4.2

[Feathers are complex, designed structures required for
flight that cannot be explained by evolution]

‘It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once
evolved, assumed additional functions, but how they arose
initially, presumably from reptilian scales, defies
analysis.’ . . . . ‘The problem has been set
aside, not for want of interest, but for lack of evidence.
No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather
is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a
theory on pure speculation.’ . . . . ‘It seems,
from the complex construction of feathers, that their
evolution from reptilian scales would have required an
immense period of time and involved a series of
intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not
bear out that supposition.’ - Barbara J. Stahl (St
Anselm’s College, USA) in Vertebrate History:
Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974,
pp. 349 and 350.

[Editor's note: A number of sites refer to a later
edition: Stahl, Barbara J., Vertebrate history: Problems in
Evolution, Dover: New York NY, 1985, p.350.]

After reading the sentences presented by the quote
miner, one might think that the evolution of feathers is
wishful thinking on the part of biologists, but a more
complete reading would show otherwise:

It is not difficult to imagine how
feathers, once evolved, assumed additional functions, but
how they arose initially, presumably from reptilian scales,
defies analysis. Scientists of an earlier generation
attributed the appearance of feathers to environmental
factors. G Heilmann, who published an exhaustive discussion
of the origin of birds in 1927, suggested that the scales
of an arboreal avian ancestor lengthened in response to
increased air pressure and then gradually frayed at the
edges and then metamorphosed into typical feathers as a
result of friction generated between the air and the body
of the leaping animals. Heilmann's quaint, Lamarckian
explanation is unacceptable today, but no other has been
put forth. The problem has been set
aside, not for want of interest, but for lack of evidence.
No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather
is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a
theory on pure speculation. Their supposition that
feathers were derived from the scales of reptiles is based
on the fact that both are nonliving, keratinized structures
generated from papillae on the surface of the body. Since
reptiles and birds are closely related, it seems more
likely that their papillae are homologous than that those
of birds arose de novo and replaced the
reptilian scale-producing tissues.

The way a feather grows suggests that it is a scale much
modified. It develops as a scale does from the epidermal
cells of the papilla, but instead of forming in a flat
plate at the surface it takes its origin from a collar of
cells at the base of the papilla and extends outward. Its
substance subdivides into numerous hollow barbs, which are
fringed with barbules and conjoined at a central shaft. If
the shaft is short and the barbules smooth-walled, the
feather is of a type called down. Its barbs form a fluffy,
insulating cover for the adjacent skin. Flight feathers and
contour feathers that give the body its shape have longer,
stronger shafts and barbules equipped with hooks. The hooks
on each barbule catch the barbule farther forward, so that
the barbs radiating from either side of the shaft are held
in a flat, wind-resistant vane. It
seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that
their evolution from reptilian scales would have required
an immense period of time and involved a series of
intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not
bear out that supposition. The oldest bird known,
Archaeopteryx, still exhibited skeletal characters
reminiscent of reptilian ones, but its feathers gave no
hint of primitive features.

As we can see from a more comprehensive reading of
Stahl, the idea of evolution isn't based entirely on the
fossil record. Other aspects of biology contribute as well,
such as comparative anatomy in the case of the evolution of
feathers. As Stahl points out, both feathers and scales are
structures made of keratin that grow from epidermal cells
in papillae, and this is the basis for the belief that
feathers evolved from scales.

And finally, while feather precursors may have been
unknown 30 years ago, that's certainly not the case now.
See the following papers for more information:

Ji Q. & Ji S.-A. 1996. On discovery of the earliest
bird fossil in China and the origin of birds. Chinese
Geology 233:30­33. In Chinese. [English
translation by Will Downs and obtained courtesy of the Polyglot
Paleontologist website

It would be good to note here that Rick Prum's theory of
feather development and evolution predicts a number of
transitional stages in the evolution of modern feathers,
and that one of those predicted stages looks quite a lot
like the structures seen on Sinosauropteryx. There are a number of possible
references, but here's one: Prum, R. O., and A. H. Brush.
2002. The evolutionary origin and diversification of
feathers. Q. Rev.
Biol. 77:261-295.
[PubMed]

- John Harshman

Quote #4.3

[The lack of transitional fossils contradicts
evolution]

"Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories
are shrouded in mystery: commonly new higher categories
appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of
transitional forms." - D. M. Raup and S. M. Stanley
Principles of Paleontology, W. H. Freeman and
Co., San Francisco, 1971, page 306.

In general, it is much easier to establish phylogenies
for major vertebrate groups than for major invertebrate and
plant groups because all recognized classes and orders of
the Vertebrata have originated since the Cambrian. Although
all higher vascular plant taxa have apparently originated
since the early Paleozoic, the fossil record of plants is
less complete. Furthermore, fossil plant remains usually
reveal less about whole-organism morphology than do
vertebrate remains. Invertebrate animals fall into several
phyla whose late Precambrian and Cambrian are almost
universally undocumented by the known fossil record. In
some instances, however, we have a moderately good
knowledge of the post-Paleozoic phylogenies within
invertebrate phyla.

Note that the discussion centers around the fossil
record of the late Precambrian and Cambrian. Immediately
following, at the top of page 306 is the section
quoted:

Unfortunately, the origins of most
higher categories are shrouded in mystery; commonly new
higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record
without evidence of transitional ancestral[1]forms. Simpson has listed several
reasons for this situation. Among them are the
following:

Appearance of a new higher category has usually marked
a major adaptive breakthrough, often accompanying
inhabitation of previously unoccupied niches; evolution
under such conditions has tended to be very
rapid.

Any lineages of the ancestral group that were similar
enough to enter into competition with the new group are
likely to have been rapidly displaced.

Often, times of higher category appearance are
represented by gaps in the geological record. (in some
instances, rapid evolutionary turnover and unconformities
may have resulted from the same widespread environmental
change.)

Change in habitat during the adaptive breakthrough has
made discovery of certain transitional forms unlikely.

Major adaptive breakthroughs have commonly occurred in
relatively small populations or taxonomic groups.

Transitions have commonly been made in taxa whose
members were small relative to average size in both the
ancestral and descendent higher categories.

Transitions have commonly taken place in restricted
geographic areas, and possibly the same transitions
occurred at different times in different areas.

Seven possible reasons are given as to why the fossil
record is currently incomplete, and while creationists may
dispute the validity of these reasons, that doesn't change
the fact that possible reasons were given. But remember
that the quoted section stated that "the origins of
most higher categories are shrouded in
mystery...". Does this mean that Raup and Stanley believe
that all origins are "shrouded in mystery"? Not at
all, because immediately following the list of possible
reasons for the incompleteness of the fossil record is this
gem:

The fossil record does occasionally provide what might
be termed as a "missing link," a species that appears to
represent a transitional stage between higher taxa. One
such form is the reptile-like bird Archaeopteryx, of
the Middle Jurassic,... Archaeopteryx possessed both
reptilian and avian characters. Its possession of feathers
suggests that it was warm-blooded, like modern birds, but
it also had large teeth, solid bones, and other reptilian
skeletal features.

Raup and Stanley then go on to outline the transition
from bactritid nautiloids to ammonoids (two invertebrate
groups).

In conclusion, while Raup and Stanley acknowledge
some gaps in the fossil record, this doesn't mean
that they believe that such gaps are because transitional
forms never existed, as can be seen by a more complete
reading of the their text.

- Jon (Augray) Barber

Quotes #4.4

"If we were to expect to find ancestors to or
intermediates between higher taxa, it would be in the rocks
of late Precambrian to Ordovician times, when the bulk of
the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet transitional
alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla
or classes appearing then." - J.W. Valentine and D.H.
Erwin, "The Fossil Record," in Development as an
Evolutionary Process (Uas, 1987), p. 84.

"We conclude that ... neither of the contending theories
of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic
gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to
the origin of new body plans. - Ibid, p. 96.

The first two sentences provided are right at the
beginning of the section entitled "The Question of the
Missing Ancestors (Intermediates)":

If ever we were to expect to find
ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would
be in the rocks of late Precambrian to Ordovician times,
when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved.
Yet transitional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for
any of the phyla or classes appearing then. The
question, then, is what factors have conspired to prevent
the appearance of ancestral lineages.

The major reasons that an ancestral linage would fail to
be preserved may be summarized as follows: 1) the rock
record is so fragmentary that there is hardly any chance of
finding ancestors; 2) The rock record is adequate, but the
fossil record is so poor and the total number of missing
taxa so great that the lack of ancestors is not surprising;
3) The ancestors lived in environments that are not well
represented in the sedimentary record; 4) The ancestors
were soft bodied; 5) The ancestors were minute; 6) The
ancestors were represented by very small populations; 7)
The ancestral taxa were represented by very few lineages --
they did not much diversify; 8) The ancestors were highly
localized geographically; and 9) the ancestors evolved
rapidly and so were present for only a sort interval of
time.

Valentine and Erwin then spend the next seven and a half
pages discussing these reasons. Then, at the top of page 92
they begin the next section ("Analysis of Previous
Macroevolutionary Models") where they discuss, what else,
previous evolutionary models. There is a relatively long
subsection entitled "microevolution", and on page 96 is a
short, two paragraph subsection entitled "Species
Selection", and in the second paragraph we finally come to
the third sentence provided:

The required rapidity of the change implies either a few
large steps or many and exceedingly rapid smaller ones.
Large steps are tantamount to saltations and raise the
problems of fitness barriers; small steps must be numerous
and entail the problems discussed under microevolution. The
periods of stasis raise the probability that the lineage
would enter the fossil record, and we reiterate that we can
find none of the postulated intermediate forms. Finally,
the large numbers of species that must be generated so as
to form a pool from which the successful lineage is
selected are nowhere to be found. We
conclude that the probability that species selection
is a general solution to the origin of higher taxa is not
great, and that neither of the
contending theories of evolutionary change at the species
level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem
applicable to the origin of new body plans.

It should now be obvious that the sentences provided
were never intended to be associated. The first two comment
on the absence of transitional forms early in the history
of multicellular (metazoan) life, and the last one is a
claim that neither phyletic gradualism or punctuated
equilibrium are an explanation for the origin of new body
plans. But does this mean that Valentine and Erwin reject
evolution? No, because immediately following the quoted
text is this:

A difficulty with each of these models is their concern
with the generation of diversity. The models differ in the
degree to which they associate morphological change and the
acquisition of genetic isolation, but all share a common
view of morphological novelty as a by-product or
consequence of specialization. The seeming paradox of
abundant new body plans evolving during a time of
relatively low species diversity may be a key to the
Metazoan radiation. What may be required is a theory for
the evolution of novelty, not diversity, which explains
abundant individual transitions occuring [sic] in 1 to 5
million years or less and leading to new phyla and classes
without the production of easily fossilized intermediates
or of numerous species.

And lest there be any doubt, their final summation makes
the following statement:

...we envision an evolutionary process not unlike forms
of selection that operate during microevolution, but with
mechanisms of genome change that do not operate at the same
intensity or with the same results today. However, these
postulated processes do operate at the same hierarchical
level as does most microevolution -- the level of natural
selection in populations.

- Jon (Augray) Barber

Since the quote mine, a closer look at Cambrian fossils
has suggested that a number of them are plausible
intermediates between phyla or other higher taxa. See Simon
Conway Morris's book Crucible of Creation
(1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press) and this excellent
review paper: Budd, G. E., and S. Jensen. 2000. A critical
reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla.
Biol. Rev. 75:253-295.
[PubMed]

- John Harshman

Quote #4.5

[Transitional forms are absent in the fossil record]

"The origin of the rodents is obscure. When they first
appear, in the late Paleocene, in the genus Paramys, we are
already dealing with a typical, if rather primitive, true
rodent, with the definitive ordinal characters well
developed. Presumably, of course, they had arisen from some
basal, insectivorous, placental stock; but no transitional
forms are known." - Romer, A. S., Vertebrate
Paleontology, 3rd Ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press, 1966, p. 303.

The quote, when given as fully as above (which it often
is not), is accurate and complete enough. Of course, it
also has little to do with any premise that there are
no transitionals in the fossil record. Science
does not claim to have a complete record of all life that
has ever lived on Earth or even that it is a practical
possibility to ever obtain one. Listing examples of
transitionals that have not been found is a sterile
activity until the creationists can give a coherent
explanation those that have been found. (See, for
example, Transitional
Vertebrate Fossils FAQ by Kathleen Hunt)

Perhaps more importantly, Romer's book is almost 40
years old. Science has, as usual, kept moving. Among
others, fossils of the apparent common ancestor of rodents
and lagomorphs have been found in Asia. See Transitional
Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A (which, itself, is a
little dated as it was last revised in 1997).

- John (catshark) Pieret

Quote #4.6

[Evolutionary theory is bankrupt and many scientists are
distancing themselves from it]

We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time
that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes.' - K. Hsu [1], geologist at the Geological
Institute at Zurich, "Darwin's Three Mistakes"
(Geology, vol. 14, 1986, p. 534)

[1] Note: Kenneth J.
Hsü has an umlaut accent on the 'u' which is generally
lost for understandable reasons. The article is from pages
532-534 with the quote itself in page 534.

[2] This site states
that its list of quotes is "Compiled by: Sean D. Pitman
M.D.". Dr. Pitman, a regular poster at the talk.origins
usenet group, informs us that he is not associated with
that site nor has he ever been contacted by those who
maintain it for permission to use his name. - Ed.

First of all Dr. Hsü is certainly not a
creationist, this "commentary" article starts with the
following paragraph:

The Darwinian theory of evolution has two themes: common
descent and natural selection. Creationists are barking up
the wrong tree when they question common descent, which is
amply documented by scientific evidence. Darwin's mistakes
were in his emphasis on biotic competition in natural
selection.

So Hsü fully accepts evolution. If one
is observant, than one might notice that the above paragraph
shows he accepts natural selection as well. Lets back up
and reproduce the article's abstract:

When I read the entire article, I really don't see
anything particularly anti-Darwinian about it. Indeed,
Hsü seems to have had an exaggerated idea of his own
anti-Darwinism, in my humble opinion. Hsü certainly
points to items in which Darwin was wrong; items which are
important to contemporary paleontologists. But it would
have been shocking if someone living today (or 1986 when
Hsü's commentary was published) could not point to
many things wrong in a scientific work from 1859.

Darwin's extreme commitment to gradualism, which is
responsible for the first of the three mistakes Hsü
identifies, was pointed out by even close supporters of
Darwin from the very beginning. [3]
Natural selection certainly does not require such an
extreme gradualism in order to operate. The second point is
certainly consistent with natural selection. The third is
the recognition that we have today that a species might die
out due to "bad luck" resulting from a change in the
physical environment or even purely stochastic causes
having nothing to do with the organism's fitness (an impact
by an asteroid or comet killing the dinosaurs, for example)
or a combination thereof, instead of competition with a
more fit organism. Certainly, Hsü's take on Darwin is
nothing out of the mainstream of modern evolutionary
theory.

The final five paragraphs are dedicated to what looks to
me to be the real reason for the commentary: the author is
upset at ideologues using Darwin as justification for their
views.

Our understanding of evolution is imperfect; we could
still argue on the relative importance of biotic and
environmental factors in evolution or on the role of
natural selection at times of biotic crisis, but few
propose today that "each new variety or species . . . will
generally press hardest on its nearest kindred, and tend to
exterminate them." Yet unfortunately, it is this aspect of
the Darwinian ideology that has permeated our social
philosophy all too deeply.

The success of the Darwinian theory on natural selection
has been attributed to the Zeitgeist of
his age. As Rupert Reidle . . . wrote, "The reading public
of England, which, with Victorian industrialization, had
demonstrated its (often ruthless) efficiency, could now see
the rights its arrogated to itself on the ground of that
efficiency legitimated as law of nature." Colonialism was
justified then, as nationalism now. Even Darwin himself,
although not a racist, wrote in a letter to W. Graham dated
July 3, 1881 . . . "The more civilized so-called Caucasian
races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for
existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date,
what an endless number of the lower races will have been
eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the
world." [4]

Darwinism was also used in a defense of competitive
individualism and its economic corollary of laissez-faire
capitalism in England and in America. ...

Not only capitalists but also socialists welcomed
Darwinism; Karl Marx though Darwin's books important
because it supported the class struggle in history from the
point of view of natural science. Worst of all, Darwinism
opened the door to racists who wanted to apply the
principle of natural selection . . .

George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the
luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I
also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have
suffered through two world wars and are threatened by
Armageddon. [Recall that in 1986 the decades old nuclear
standoff between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. still existed. -
Hopkins] We have had enough of the
Darwinian fallacy. It is about time that we cry: "The
emperor has no clothes."

So it can be seen that Hsü, in the quote mined
text, was actually attacking the various guises of "Social
Darwinism". The real irony of all this is that Charles
Darwin would have agreed with Hsü in these attacks. I
am not sure that Hsü fully realized this.

[3] A primary example
being that of Thomas Henry Huxley (widely known as
"Darwin's Bulldog"), who warned Darwin, literally on the
eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou
have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in
adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature
does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.

Something must be said
concerning the Darwin quote Hsü included above.

The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten
the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking
to the world at no very distant date, what an endless
number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the
higher civilized races throughout the world. F. Darwin,
ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin.
New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905, p. 286, which can be
found at:
The writings of Charles Darwin on the web

Darwin seems to be referring there to the same idea he
advanced in The Descent of Man, which is
frequently quote mined as:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by
centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly
exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
world. - Darwin, Descent, vol. I, 201.

The great break in the organic chain between man and his
nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct
or living species, has often been advanced as a grave
objection to the belief that man is descended from some
lower form; but this objection will not appear of much
weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all
parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined,
others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and
its nearest allies -- between the Tarsius and the other
Lemuridae -- between the elephant, and in a more striking
manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all
other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number
of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as
measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races
throughout the world. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has
remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between
man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will
intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a
baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian
and the gorilla. (Darwin, The Descent of Man and
Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd edn., London, John
Murray, 1882, p. 156, which can be found at
The writings of Charles Darwin on the web.)

First of all, Darwin is making a technical argument as
to the "reality" of species, particularly Homo
sapiens in this case, and why there should still be
apparently distinct species, if all the different forms of
life are related by common descent through incremental
small changes. His answer is that competition against those
forms with some, even small, advantage tends to eliminate
closely related forms, giving rise to an apparent "gap"
between the remaining forms. Whether or not Darwin was
right about that is irrelevant to the use of this quote
mine, of course, since that is part of the context that the
creationists using it have assiduously removed. For those
interested in the real issue, a bit more information can be
found in the response to Quote
#3.1.

Claims based on either of these quotes that Darwin and
by extension modern evolutionary theory was or is "racist"
or that the theory leads to racism, are less than honest.
As John Wilkins noted in a "Feedback"
article:

Throughout the Descent, when Darwin refers to "civilised
races" he almost always is referring to cultures in Europe.
I think Darwin was simply confused at that time about the
difference between biological races and cultural races in
humans. This is not surprising at this time - almost nobody
made the distinction but Alfred Russel Wallace.

. . . At this time it was common for Europeans (based on
an older notion of a "chain of being from lowest to
highest") to think that Africans ("negroes") were all of
one subspecific form, and were less developed than
"Caucasians" or "Asians", based on a typology in around
1800 by the German Johann Friedrich Blumenach. In short,
Darwin is falling prey to the same error almost everyone
else was . . . So far as I can tell, he was not hoping for
the extermination of these "races", though. ... Throughout
his life, Darwin argued against slavery and for the freedom
and dignity of native populations under European
slavery.

Darwin was not perfect. But he was no racist.

In short, there is nothing in Darwin's words to support
(and much in his life to contradict) any claim that Darwin
wanted the "lower" or "savage races" to be exterminated. He
was merely noting what appeared to him to be factual, based
in no small part on the evidence of a European binge of
imperialism and colonial conquest during his lifetime. And
if Wilkins is correct (and I think he is) about Darwin
confusing biology and culture in this instance, Darwin was
not entirely wrong. Certainly we can still see more
technologically and militarily "advanced" cultures either
destroying or, perhaps worse and more lasting, co-opting
and replacing the less "advanced" ones.

Even if we hold that Darwin was a racist (by our
present-day lights) [5], what of it? Would that invalidate
modern evolutionary theory? As noted above, these "chain of
being" attitudes were widespread at the time. Similarly
embarrassing statements on race can be found in the words
of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Does that
invalidate the idea of democracy or America's version of
it? Martin Luther made strongly
anti-Semitic statements. Is all Protestant Christianity
therefore suspect? Even Henry Morris, the "godfather" of
"creation science" has made statements of a racial nature
that many would find repugnant. (See "Creationism Implies Racism?"
by Richard Trott and Jim Lippard.) Is that alone enough to
"disprove" creationism?

Finally, what if evolutionary theory did say that some
human "races" will be winners and some losers through
natural selection (though most scientists and philosophers
of science deny that the theory dictates anything of the
sort)? Any such argument against acceptance of the science
of evolution commits the "Fallacy of Appeal to
Consequences", an argument that a proposition is true
because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is
false because belief in it has bad consequences. (See, for
example, "Appeal to
Consequences" by Gary N. Curtis.)

Whether we like it or not, our hopes and aspirations are
irrelevant to how the universe actually works. Fortunately,
evolutionary theory presents us with no such conundrum. But
even if it did, those who ignore the facts of nature in
favor of what they would like it to be have historically
caused their share, and more, of the adverse consequences
our species has suffered.

Quote #4.7

[Evolutionary theory is not a science, for it has no facts to support it]

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the
peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it
then science, or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly
parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which believers know
to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
(Matthews, L. H. Introduction to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's
"The Origin of Species")

Did Harrison Matthews, a former scientific director of the Zoological
Society of London, really feel that belief in evolution was comparable to
belief in special creation? While it might warm the hearts of some creationists
to think so, we'll soon see that it's not true.

But before we examine Matthews's beliefs, it should be noted that there's
some confusion as to whether this quote is from 1971 or 1972. In reality,
Matthews wrote his introduction in 1971, and this is the copyright date given
at the front of the book, as well as at the end of the introduction itself.
However, it wasn't published until 1972, the year this particular reprint of
Darwin's work was released.

Now, onward to the quote itself. Reading through the introduction, but before
the quoted passage, we come across these words:

The intense hostility and controversy produced by the appearance of
The Origin of Species a year after the publication of the
Darwin-Wallace paper had, fundamentally, nothing to do with the originality
of the ideas put forward. Many naturalists were already convinced of the fact
of evolution, but without a plausible theory to show how it might have taken
place they were unable to refute their opponents who held to the doctrine of
special creation. [Matthews 1972, ix]

Note that Matthews differentiates between the fact of evolution, and a
theory to explain it. This is similar to the fact of gravity, and a
theory (either Newton's or Einstein's) to explain it, and is a common mistake
made by creationists when attacking evolution. For more on this particular
error see "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory".

We now come to the paragraph containing the quote-mined passage. Beginning
on page x, and concluding on page xi:

Even 'Darwin's Bulldog', as Thomas Huxley once called himself,
wrote in 1863: 'I adopt Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, therefore, subject to the
production of proof that physiological species may be produced by selective
breeding' -- meaning species that are infertile if crossed. That proof has
never been produced, though a few not entirely convincing examples are claimed
to have been found. The fact of evolution is the backbone
of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science
founded on an unproved theory -- is it then science, or a faith? Belief in
the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither,
up to the present, has been capable of proof.

Once again, we can see that Matthews makes a distinction between the
fact of evolution (citing it as the backbone of biology), and a
theory to explain it. However, the fact that he cites both natural
selection and special creation as being on equal footing doesn't stop him from
throwing his lot in with evolution, for on page xii he writes the following:

Mendel showed that inheritance is particulate, that 'factors'
in the genotype transmit the characters expressed by the phenotype. This
discovery, combined with the growing knowledge of the chromosomes and their
behaviour in the maturation of reproductive cells, was the basis of the modern
discipline of genetics, which revealed how evolution by natural selection of
random changes in the factors or 'genes' or in their permutations and
combinations proceeds. ...

During the last fifty years genetics has unravelled many of the extremely
complex phenomena of inheritance, and has show that evolution by natural
selection of random mutations, generally of small size, is a logical
explanation of the origin of the immense array of organisms now and in the
past living on earth. The theory is so plausible that most biologists accept
it as though it were a proven fact, although their conviction rests upon
circumstantial evidence; it forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our
interpretation of nature.

So Matthews feels that not only does natural selection have a basis in the
science of genetics, but that it's a logical explanation for life's diversity.
In essence, Matthews's stance is that natural selection has not been proven
to be the mechanism of evolution, but that it's a plausible basis for the
fact of evolution that doesn't conflict with the evidence.

...stopping over in England, I spoke to an elderly zoologist,
L. Harrison Matthews, who wrote the introduction to Darwin's
Origin in the
Everyman Edition. In phrases which have been seized on by Creationists,
Matthews argues that belief in Darwinism is like a religious commitment.
This was going to be used by the State of Arkansas, who would argue that
belief in Creation-science is logically identical to belief in evolution.
Hence, since one can teach the latter, one should be allowed to teach the
former. (A more rigorous conclusion would be that since both are religion,
neither should be taught. But no matter.)

Would Matthews recant? He was happy to do so, and wrote me a strong letter
about the misuse that he felt Creationists had made of his introduction.
Reading between the lines, I got the strong impression that what motivated
Matthews in his introduction was not the logic of evolutionary theory at all.
He wanted to poke the late Sir Gavin de Beer in the eye. De Beer was a fanatical
Darwinian, and Matthews was dressing him down for the undue strength of his
feelings! [Ruse 1984, 323]

I wrote to Professor Ruse in an attempt to get a copy of Matthews's letter,
but he replied that some things don't survive 20 years and a move to another
country, Matthews's letter being one of them. However, in his narrative of the
Arkansas trial, Ruse relates that at the end of his testimony:

We had covered just about everything under the sun, with the
possible exception of L. Harrison Matthews' claims about the religious nature
of Darwinism. When Williams [the assistant attorney general of Arkansas] saw the
scathing letter that Matthews wrote to me about Creationism, he decided not to
introduce Matthews into the testimony. [Ruse 1984, 334]

One has to wonder why Williams, defending a bill that would have introduced
creationism into the Arkansas school system, wouldn't bring up a biologist
who supposedly put creationism and evolution on an equal footing. There can be
little doubt that Matthews' letter revealed that creationists had
misrepresented him.

More evidence of Matthews' true views can be found scattered throughout his
writings. For instance, a few years after penning his introduction for the
Origin, he stated that:

The evolution of new species of animals, before our eyes, through
changes in the genetic code is not apparent because it is believed to take place
by natural selection acting upon cumulative small changes over a long period of
time, in populations isolated by geographical or other barriers.
[Matthews 1975, 115]

Here, once again, Matthews asserts that natural selection, the theory of
evolution, is a belief. In another instance, he wrote:

Convergences such as these show that the environment appears to
mould the evolving living material under its influence by means of natural
selection. [Matthews 1969, 74]

And later on in the same book:

It is generally held that the behaviour patterns as well as the
physical characters of animals have been determined by the action of natural
selection, and population cycles must be equally subject to its influence.
[Matthews 1969, 282]

Again, Matthews takes a tentative view of natural selection. But does this
mean that Matthews didn't believe that evolution had occurred? Not at all:

Ever since the first appearance of life on earth a process of
evolution from comparatively simple to more complex organisms has been going on.
[Matthews 1975, 114]

So while Matthews seems to have had some doubts about natural selection in
certain instances, he expresses no doubts about the reality of evolution.
Regarding the evolution of the mammals, he wrote that:

Long before the dinosaurs had achieved their evolutionary success
another group of reptiles, the synapsids, had appeared, evolved during forty
million years into a variety of forms, and then had all but disappeared by the
time the great dinosaur dynasty was coming into power. They left only a tenuous
thread of descendants, small and inconspicuous creatures leading obscure lives
in out of the way places during the million centuries of dinosaur dominance.
Yet they were destined, insignificant though they seemed, to replace the once
dominant reptiles.

The synapsids are known also as the
'mammal-like
reptiles', and in the
evolution of their descendants there came a point at which a human observer
would have realized that they were no longer mammal-like reptiles but
reptile-like mammals. This point was probably reached about a hundred and
eighty million years ago in the late Triassic, but because they were creatures
of modest size few fossil remains of them have been preserved and the
documentation is scanty. Some seventy million years ago, at the close of
Mesozoic times, they began to expand in numbers and diversity, and took the
place left by the dinosaurs and their relations as the dominant creatures of
the earth. [Matthews 1969, 1]

Now there is no uncertainty in Matthews's words. Referring to the evolution
of the monotremes (a group of mammals that includes the platypus and the spiny
anteater as its only living representitives), he states that:

The monotremes have not left their reptilian ancestral
characters so far behind as have the other mammals; they do not, however,
represent a stage in the evolution of the Metatheria and Eutheria
[two mammal classes] but a parallel line that early diverged.
[Matthews 1971, 14]

A remarkably complete fossil record has enabled the evolution of
the equids to be traced from small Eocene browsing ancestors with four toes on
the front foot and three on the hind, to the modern grazing forms with a single
functional digit on all limbs. The reduction in number of digits accompanied an
increase in size, in length of leg, length of face, and specialization of the
cheek teeth. [Matthews 1971, 345-346]

Over two million years and more before that time early species of
man were evolving from the stock of australopithecine man-like apes -- their
brains were getting larger, and they had got up from all-fours to walk upright
on their hind legs. At the same time their eye-teeth, the canines, became smaller
so that they no longer projected as fangs above the level of the other teeth.
[Matthews 1975, 1]

And at one point on his career, Matthews even disposed of that imagined
problem for evolution, the origin of the eye:

The evolution of eyes from simple eye-spots consisting of
light-sensitive substances was almost inevitable. In a many-celled animal
the cells containing such pigment will generally lie at the surface of the
body, and their pigment will be at the inner end of the cells, as close as
possible to the under-lying nerve fibers. The transparent protoplasm of the
cell body causes the surface membrane of the cell to bulge outwards slightly
so that, especially in non-aquatic animals, light falling on it is refracted
and concentrated upon the pigment. Such simple eyes, like eye-spots, are
light-gathering organs and do not form images, but the basis structures are
present for the development of image-forming organs by further stages of
evolution. In the first stage, still a light-gatherer and not an image-former,
the density of the refracting part of the cell is increased, thereby producing
a very simple lens. In the next stage the cell is divided into two, so that a
lens-cell lies above a retinular-cell containing the pigment. This simplest
form of eye containing an optical system is found in the young stages of some
Ascidians or Sea-squirts, animals that swim freely in the sea while they are
minute larvae but then settle on the bottom and become superficially more like
vegetables in appearance when adult. Once a lens-cell and a retinular-cell are
separated the further stages of evolution to produce an image-forming eye of
great efficiency are merely those of an increased differentiation of cell
structure, and enormous increase in cell numbers (the human eye is said to
contain 137,000,000 nerve endings) and a general increase in complexity.

A series of eyes ascending from the simplest to those probably as efficient
as our own, perhaps even more so, can be traced in the molluscs, the shell-fish
that include the snail, limpet, and periwinkle, the oyster, clam, and cockle,
the squids and octopuses -- very different from those other shell-fish, the
crustacea, which include crabs, lobsters and shrimps.
[Matthews 1963, 156-157]

And Matthews wasn't always so coy about natural selection as a legitimate
mechanism for evolution:

Behaviour patterns have evolved under the influence of natural
selection during thousands or millions of years, just as have the physical
characters of mammals and, as would be expected, they have diverged widely.
[Matthews 1969, 220]

And in a final affront to creationist sensibilities, Matthews points out
that new species of plants have appeared:

There is no reason to think that evolution has stopped because
we see little change in the character of the world's biomass by the appearance
of new species by hybridisation and polyploidy, the multiplication of the
numbers of characteristic chromosomes. Many of the cereal cultivars are such
species -- the cord grass Spartina townsendi is another well-known example.
[Matthews 1975, 115]

Lest there are any readers who still hold out hope that Matthews had any
philosophical kinship with creationists, I can only point out that the man seems
to have held a rather bleak view of the world, one that a creationist would have
trouble identifying with:

Speaking
teleologically, the production of
vast numbers of animals merely to destroy them seems pointless, but then all
the phenomena of life are, in the ultimate analysis, equally pointless, for
all end in the final frustration of death. The only biological things that can
be regarded as immortal are the self-replicating molecules of DNA in the minute
proportion of germ cells that produce another generation.
[Matthews 1969, 283]

And if Matthews did believe in a deity, it was one closer to the God of Job
than the God of Genesis. Describing the fates of less fortunate young penguins,
he wrote that:

The skuas pick off the less active chicks, often disembowelling
them and pecking them to pieces alive in a way highly repulsive to human eyes,
put presumably not offensive to those of the Almighty who ordains these things.
[Matthews 1977, 102-103]

And at the end of this same book, a combination of history, science, and
anecdotes from his experiences on the seas surrounding Antarctica in the 1920s,
he speculates:

It is therefore just possible that one or two of all those
thousands of birds and seals that fascinated me so many years ago are still
living, though most of them have long since perished. Yet the immortal stream
of self-replicating DNA flows on in each according to its kind, budding off its
annual generation of creatures to harbour it and bear it along, until mutation
changes them to something different, or some happening brings the inevitable
extinction that awaits all forms of life.
[Matthews 1977, 164]

It's probably safe to say that on these points the vast majority of
creationists, and Christians in general, would part philosophical company with
Matthews. But, just as theologians shouldn't dissect biology, neither should
biologists pontificate on theology. And while Matthews may have been a prolific
biologist, there's little reason to give his views on the ultimate purpose of
life much credence, and I only present them here to show how incompatible they
are with those of creationists who call on him for support.

In conclusion, to say that Harrison Matthews felt that belief in evolution
was comparable to belief in special creation is a grotesque misrepresentation.
In reality, he felt that evolution itself was a fact beyond dispute, and in
none of his writings that I've examined is there even the slightest hint that
faith was required to accept it as true. However, he didn't believe that
natural selection had been demonstrated to be the universal mechanism for
evolution, and accepting it as such was what required faith. It is the ambiguity
of the phrase "theory of evolution", as opposed to "fact of evolution" in the
sentence before it, that the quote-miner has taken advantage of to cast doubt
upon Matthews' belief in evolution itself. And, as Michael Ruse wrote in his
initial response to me, regarding Matthews' quarrel with Sir Gavin de Beer,
"of such molehill things are creationist mountains made".

I'd like to express my appreciation for Chris Nedin's powers of recall, and
to Michael Ruse for his kind responses to my questions.

Quote #4.8

[Evolutionary theory is not necessary to understanding biology]

The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within
biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree
with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except
in the light of evolution'
[1], most can conduct their work quite happily without
particular reference to evolutionary ideas. 'Evolution' would appear to be the
indispensible unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.
- Adam S. Wilkins, BioEssays (2000, p. 1051)

Anyone familiar with Wilkins or BioEssays, a journal which
regularly publishes some of the more interesting
evo-devo papers around, will
suspect that something is fishy here. There is. Let's look at the very next
paragraph:

Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing.
More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to
the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting
evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the
development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to
understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them.

And this is in an introduction to an entire issue of the journal dedicated
to evolutionary processes -- and Bergman wants to use it to argue that
biologists don't consider evolution important?

Here's the table of contents from that issue. Again, does this sound like a
bunch of people who think evolution isn't particularly important to biology?

Bergman's whole point is bogus. Yes, I can go into my lab right now, make up
some solutions, run a pH meter, collect embryos, use a microscope, etc., without
once using the principles of evolutionary biology. Likewise, I can do a lot of
the day-to-day stuff of the lab without even thinking about developmental
biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, or physiology; that does not imply
that these disciplines are not central to how life works. We don't need
evolutionary biology . . . except whenever we want to think about how these
narrow, esoteric little experiments we do fit into the grander picture of life
on earth. You know, biology.
[2]

This comes from what is essentially a "letter to the editor" by Scott C.
Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, about the Kansas Board of
Education's 1999 decision to eliminate the required teaching of evolution in
public schools. It was not from a formal scientific or philosophical paper.

Creationists quote the above but leave out the very next sentence:

Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a
reality that transcends naturalism.

In that next sentence, Dr. Todd correctly identifies the basis of the
exclusion of the design hypothesis from science as methodological, not
philosophical, naturalism. While it might be quibbled that Dr. Todd could have
put it better, science, contrary to the fondest wishes of creationists, is
still not metaphysics. To suggest that Dr. Todd was expressing a commitment
to philosophical Naturalism is the height of disingenuousness.

Also, the text which immediately precedes the quotation is:

Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that
science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it
cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably).

That is hardly dogmatic anti-theism on Dr. Todd's part.

Dr. Todd's complete letter to Nature can be found at
its website
(requires subscription).

- John (catshark) Pieret and Tom (TomS) Scharle

Quote #4.10

[Darwinism cannot explain the origin of species]

We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the
neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence
supporting it are weak. - Orr, H.A. and Coyne, J.A. "The Genetics of Adaptation:
A Reassessment," American Naturalist vol. 140, p.726 (1992).

[Editor's note: Whether this quote was originally mined by Michael J. Behe,
or he just compounded someone else's abuse of Orr and Coyne, the most prominent
venue for this quote mine is probably Behe's
Darwin's Black Box (1996, New York: The Free Press, p. 29).]

I looked Orr and Coyne's paper up, and as it turns out - and I'm sure this
will be to no one's surprise - this quote was taken out of context in a highly
misleading way.

Behe uses this quote in a section along with numerous other quotes, in order
to support his point that "From Mivart to Margulis, there have always been
well-informed, respected scientists who have found Darwinism to be
inadequate" (p.30). However, Coyne and Orr are not in any way supporting Behe's
view or disagreeing with evolution in general, as Behe strongly implies they
are. The topic of Orr and Coyne's paper is the role of different types of
mutation in giving rise to evolutionary adaptation. The first sentence of the
paper is as follows:

It is a tenet of evolutionary biology that adaptations nearly always result
from the substitution of many genes of small effect" (Orr and Coyne, p. 725).

Now here is Behe's quote in context, from the page immediately following
that first sentence. Note that he placed a period where there was none
originally:

We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is
little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations
and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no
doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation.

We hasten to add, however, that we are not 'macromutationists' who believe that
adaptations are nearly always based on major genes. The neo-Darwinian view
could well be correct. It is almost certainly true, however, that some
adaptations involve many genes of small effect and others involve major genes.
The question we address is, How often does adaptation involve a major gene? We
hope to encourage evolutionists to reexamine this neglected question and to
provide the evidence to settle it" (p. 726).

And more:

The micromutational view of Darwin, Fisher and others is clear: adaptations
arise by allelic substitutions of slight effect at many loci, and no single
substitution constitutes a major portion of an adaptation. There are, in
contrast, at least two forms of macromutationism [reference omitted]. The first
is exemplified by the extreme saltationism of Goldschmidt [reference omitted]:
single 'systemic mutations' produce important, complex adaptations in
essentially perfect form (Goldschmidt believed that systemic mutations were
chromosomal rearrangements). As Charlesworth [reference omitted] notes, this
'strong' version of macromutationism is almost certainly wrong. It is highly
unlikely that a single mutation could create adaptations as complex as eyes or
legs, much less new taxa differing by many adaptations.

The second form of macromutationism posits that adaptation often involves one
or a few alleles of large effect. Although these alleles do not produce perfect
adaptations by themselves, they are responsible for a large portion of the
adaptation. This 'weak' version, which is more realistic than Goldschmidt's
view, is the form of macromutationism we consider in the rest of this article.
Although the term 'macromutationism' has unfortunate historical connotations,
we use it for lack of a better word" (p.726).

In other words, the sole thrust of Orr and Coyne's paper was to argue in
favor of a different model of mutation - one where a mutation affects a
"master control" gene and thus influences the activity of many other genes
which that gene regulates. They set this in opposition to the "classic" view
that evolution would have to proceed by altering the effect of each of those
downstream genes individually. (As it turns out, Orr and Coyne were right on
the money with this one: scientifically literate readers will doubtless already
be familiar with the homeobox genes whose discovery has provided a tremendous
jumpstart to the field of evolutionary developmental biology and given us new
insight into the origin of complex adaptations.)

Orr and Coyne's paper is in no way a disagreement about the fact that
evolution has happened. Instead, like so many creationist-mined quotes,
it is a legitimate scientific debate about the mechanisms by which that process
takes place. Behe has ripped it out of context and used it deceptively to
convey to readers the false impression that Orr and Coyne have doubts about the
actual fact of evolution's occurrence, when in reality nothing could be further
from the truth.

- Adam Marczyk

The section of Darwin's Black Box this quote appears in is
entitled "The Natives Are Restless". As noted, Behe's stated intent in using
this quote, along with a number of others, is to support his claim that
"From Mivart to Margulis, there have always been well-informed, respected
scientists who have found Darwinism to be inadequate" (Emphasis added)
(p.30). He starts off with quotes by Lynn Margulis
[1] and then continues:

Over the past 130 years Darwinism, although securely
entrenched, has met a steady stream of dissent both from within the scientific
community and from without it." (Emphasis added) (p. 26)

Behe then goes on to mention Richard Goldschmidt, quotes Niles Eldredge
(his 'evolution never seems to happen' quote)
and discusses in the briefest of terms Punctuated Equilibria
[2]. He spends a couple of paragraphs on the Cambrian
explosion before introducing the group of quotes including the one from Orr
and Coyne with the following:

It is not just paleontologists looking for bones, though, who
are disgruntled. A raft of evolutionary biologists examining organisms
wonder just how Darwinism can account for their observations.
(Emphasis added) (p. 28)

The particular quote is introduced with:

Jerry Coyne [3], of the Department of Ecology
and Evolution at the University of Chicago, arrives at an unexpected
verdict: (Emphasis added) (p. 29)

Despite his frequent use of the term "Darwinism", Behe fails to produce an
actual definition of what he means by it (a vagueness common to creationist
literature, allowing readers to fill in what ever they find most objectionable
in evolutionary theory). He does say his book is about "Darwinian evolution"
(p. IX) and describes "evolution" as "a process whereby life arose from
non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means",
adding "[t]hat is the sense that Darwin gave the word" (p. XI). Besides
the fact that Darwin never asserted that life "arose from non-living matter"
as a scientific proposition (Darwin, at least, understood the differences among
science, philosophy and theology), this is conflating abiogenesis and
evolutionary theory. As to the term "neo-Darwinism", that plays such a
great role in this quote, Behe gives only the following:

In the first half of the twentieth century, the many branches of
biology did not often communicate with each other (citing Ernst Mayr's
One Long Argument, 1991, Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
ch. 9). As a result genetics, systematics, paleontology, comparative anatomy,
embryology, and other areas developed their own views of what evolution meant.
Inevitably, evolutionary theory began to mean different things to different
disciplines; a coherent view of Darwinian evolution was being lost. In the
middle of the century, however, leaders of the fields organized a series of
interdisciplinary meetings to combine their views into a coherent theory of
evolution based on Darwinian principles. The result has been called the
"evolutionary synthesis," and the theory called neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism
is the basis of modem evolutionary thought. (p. 24)

This is a questionable description of the "synthetic theory". And, even
as a thumbnail history, Behe's explanation of the development of what came to
be known as "neo-Darwinism" leaves much to be desired. Importantly, however,
the above are not actually definitions. No one reading that could come away
with an understanding of what Behe is referring to with terms such as
"Darwinism", "Darwinian principles" and "neo-Darwinism". Nor does Behe give
any indication that there is no universally agreed definition of such terms,
even among scientists and philosophers of science
[4]. It is hard to believe that Behe began his critique of
"Darwinian evolution" with such a poor grasp of what his supposed subject is,
leaving us with the alternative that he is content that his intended audience
remain in the dark on the distinctions.

With this background, the misleading nature of Behe's use of the Orr and
Coyne quote becomes clear. As noted, the very first sentence of the paper is:

It is a tenet of evolutionary biology that adaptations
nearly always result from the substitution of many genes of small
effect". (Emphasis added) (Orr and Coyne, p. 725)

This is the "neo-Darwinian view" they are referring to. Orr and
Coyne are not debating the whole of "neo-Darwinism" but a very specific
claim as to the frequency of adaptations resulting from mutations to
"one or a few alleles of large effect". They are not, as Behe's vagueness would
lead the unwary to believe, disagreeing with "the basis of modem evolutionary
thought". Nor is there, to Orr and Coyne's understanding, any serious doubt
that some such mutations occur. They are disputing only how often adaptations
result "from the substitution of many genes of small effect".

In case anyone doubts our interpretation of Orr and Coyne's intent in their
article [5], Coyne himself has weighed in on Behe's quote
(a fact that Adam Marczyk was unaware of at the time he first posted the above).
As Coyne said in his article
"More Crank Science" in the Boston Review:

I am painfully and personally acquainted with Behe's penchant for
fiddling with quotations [quote omitted]. Apparently I am one of those
faint-hearted biologists who see the errors of Darwinism but cannot admit it.
This was news to me. I am surely numbered among the more orthodox evolutionists,
and hardly see our field as fatally flawed. The paper in question (actually by
Allen Orr and myself)3 addresses a technical debate among
evolutionists: are adaptations based on a lot of small genetic mutations
(the traditional neo-Darwinian view), a few big mutations, or some mixture of
the two? We concluded that although there was not much evidence one way or the
other, there were indications that mutations of large effect might occasionally
be important. Our paper cast no doubt whatever on the existence of evolution or
the ability of natural selection to explain adaptations. ...

By inserting the period (and removing the sentence from its neighbors), Behe
has twisted our meaning. Our discussion of one aspect of Darwinism -- the
relative size of adaptive mutations -- has suddenly become a critique of the
entire Darwinian enterprise. This is not sloppy scholarship, but deliberate
distortion.

Furthermore, it should be noted that Coyne's article appeared in the
February/ March 1997 issue of Boston Review. It is difficult to
believe that Behe was unaware of Coyne's complaint about being quote mined,
since an article of Behe's
("The
Sterility of Darwinism") appeared in the same
issue. And yet, the paperback edition of Darwin's Black Box (1998,
New York: Touchstone), published nearly a year later, contains the exact same
text and quote without even an acknowledgment of Coyne's objection or even a
correction as to Orr's co-authorship. Whatever Behe's purpose really was in
using this quote, it did not include an accurate and scholarly portrayal of
other scientists' work.

- John (catshark) Pieret

[1] Lynn Margulis' proposals about symbiotic
capture (or "endosymbiosis") having a major role in speciation are beyond the
purview of this response. However, even stripped of most context, the quotes
from Margulis are clearly only attacking a particular version of "neo-Darwinism"
that, as she says, "insists on" a slow accumulation of mutations. This is
slightly different from Orr and Coyne's understanding of "neo-Darwinism",
as maintaining only that adaptations are "nearly always" due to slow
accumulation of mutations of small effect (this problem with terminology is
further addressed in the fourth footnote below). More important still is the
fact that Behe equivocates between "Darwinism" and "neo-Darwinism", as where he
cites Margulis as one of the "respected scientists who have found Darwinism to
be inadequate". As pointed out by John Wilkins in a
December 2003 "Feedback"
article:

Is this [Margulis' view] "non-Darwinian"? Well, that's going to
depend on whether you think everything has to be based on just those ideas
Darwin proposed; Darwin himself would not have, and several times mentions
hybridisation as a process in the Origin, for example, in
Chapter 8, on hybrids.

[3] As already noted, Coyne was the co-author
of the paper with Orr, a fact that is reflected in Behe's own notes at the end
of the book. Why he only mentions Coyne in the text is a mystery.

[4] David L. Hull, in his book,
Science as a Process (1988, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
pp. 202-05), discusses at some length the differences in meaning given the
term "Darwinism" among scientists such as Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould,
Ernst Mayr and Richard Michod, something Hull can do because, unlike Behe, they
explain what they intend by the term. It is no surprise then that Margulis
may have a slightly different take on what "neo-Darwinism" is than Orr and
Coyne. Of course, the differences in meaning are even greater in society at
large. As Hull notes (citing an earlier paper of his on the results of a
conference of historians exploring the reception of Darwinism around the
world):

... Darwinism was many things to many people. It was rank
materialism, an atheistic attack on the Christian faith, unadulterated
positivism, a death blow to teleology. Simultaneously it was irresponsible
speculation, an outrage against positivistic science, a rebirth of teleology,
proof of the beneficent hand of God, a Christian plot to subvert the Muslim
faith. It was also an intellectual weapon to use against entrenched
aristocracies, a justification for laissez-faire economic policies, an
excuse for the powerful to subjugate the weak, and a foundation for Marxian
economic theory.

Either Behe's knowledge of the very thing he is criticizing is scant (and
his desire to rectify that deficiency even less in evidence) or he is
knowledgeable enough to recognized the different meanings of "neo-Darwinism"
and "Darwinism" but is nonetheless willing to exploit the confusion of the
public at large.

[5] Also enlightening on the issue of how
Orr and Coyne view the health of evolutionary theory are their reviews of
Darwin's Black Box:

Quote #4.11

[Evolution and natural variation is insufficient to explain some
characteristics of life]

The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation
has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those [genes] that are obviously
variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the heart of many
major adaptive changes, while those [genes] that seemingly do constitute the
foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not
variable within natural populations. - McDonald, J.F. "The Molecular Basis of
Adaptation." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 14,
p. 93 (1983).

[Editor's note: Whether this quote was originally mined by Michael J. Behe,
or he just compounded someone else's abuse of McDonald, the most prominent
venue for this quote mine is probably Behe's
Darwin's Black Box
(1996, New York: The Free Press, p. 28).]

Again, Behe has deceptively taken this quote out of context to support his
central claim that "From Mivart to Margulis, there have always been
well-informed, respected scientists who have found Darwinism to be
inadequate" (p.30) - i.e., who disagree with the proposition that life
could develop "entirely by natural means"
[1], the fact which he is questioning in his book. But
McDonald is not such a scientist. He is not disagreeing with the
fact of evolution or that it can be explained by naturalistic forces,
but is offering an alternative view of the mechanism underlying it.

In this paper, McDonald holds that low levels of background mutation
maintain a certain amount of selectable variation already present within a
species' gene pool, which ensures that it is able to adapt to most
environmental changes. So far, this is exactly the same as the standard
neo-Darwinian view. However, he argues that at times of great environmental
stress, various mechanisms cause the mutation rate to increase, and
variation in major regulatory genes arises de novo and rapidly, leading to
major adaptive shifts and the emergence of new species. This view uses aspects
both of punctuated equilibrium and of the somatic hypermutation phenomenon
recently demonstrated in E. coli, both of which he discusses.

Here is the sentence directly following the one quoted by Behe:

If the genetic material for major adaptive shifts is not present
within species' gene pools, it must be provided de novo by some sort of
mutational event(s). Evidence that just such events may accompany major
evolutionary changes in eukaryotes has come from some recent intra- and
interspecific surveys of families of multiple copy DNA. (p.93)

He surveys the evidence for environmentally triggered increases in mutation
rates, then goes on to explain his view:

In fact, recent evidence suggests that the rates of many
mutational events are not always low and constant, but rather that they
increase dramatically during periods of environmental challenge and the
consequent organismal stress. The implications for adaptation of such a
scenario are significant; at precisely those challenging moments in
evolutionary history when major adaptive shifts are required, genetic
mechanisms exist that increase the probability that the appropriate
variants will be provided." (p.94)

Again, contra Behe, McDonald is not disagreeing with the fact that natural
selection occurs or that its sculpting of genetic variation is sufficient
to produce complex adaptations. On the contrary, he says that "the basic
Darwinian tenet of natural selection remains intact" (p.97) and also that:

The marriage between molecular biology and evolution is well on its way to
being consummated. As evolutionists, we can look forward to reaping the
benefits of the products of this union over the next decade. (p.98)

and again:

Obviously, however, adaptive evolutionary changes have occurred at all levels
of biological organization, and their origins are necessarily rooted in
molecular-level events. Although there may well be molecular level changes
that are adaptively neutral or nearly so, a great number of changes must
have served as the source of adaptive evolution and will continue to do so.
(p.77-78)

His paper is focused solely on the mechanisms by which that variation arises
by naturalistic forces in the first place.

- Adam Marczyk

[1] Editor's note: The quote mine of
McDonald appears in a group of three immediately before the Orr and
Coyne quote mine discussed in
Quote #4.10. See the second half of that response for
more on the what leads up to Behe's use of this quote.

Quote #4.12

[Evolutionists are spinning imaginary scenarios rather than doing science]

"In tracking the emergence of the eukaryotic cell, one enters a kind of wonderland where
scientific pursuit leads almost to fantasy. Cell and molecular biologists must construct
cellular worlds in their own imaginations. ... Imagination, to some degree, is essential
for grasping the key events in cellular history." -- B.D. Dyer and R.A. Obar,
Tracing the
History of Eukaryotic Cells, Columbia University Press 1994, pp. 2 & 3

This is about the research program of the evolution of the eukaryotic cell.
The ellipsis is not unreasonable but what follows the last sentence quoted is:

So many components found in cells retain cryptic remnants of the
past. It is as if cells are enthusiastic collectors of souvenirs. Their attics
are full of tokens of the past, but most of the items are broken or so outdated
that their original functions are no longer obvious. Moreover, some of the
souvenirs can replicate and mutate autonomously, filling the attics and basements
with a multitude of surprises. Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan have made this point
in extending the metaphor of David C. Smith. "It is as if the Cheshire Cat has
had a litter of kittens that are playing everywhere, yet more enigmatic and
faded than their ancestor" ... ."

The point being that it is hard to disentangle the evolutionary history of
the cell - as it is for every living organism and function or part. Such is
life - the past is often hard to know. This is not, however, an obstacle to
evolutionary theory so much as a necessary result of evolution, and history,
itself.

- John S. Wilkins

It is perhaps emblematic of creationist thinking that they denigrate the use
of imagination in science. But here is what Karl Popper, the creationists'
favorite philosopher of science (at least when he can be made to appear to be
on their side), has to say on the subject:

[T]here is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas,
or a logical reconstruction of this process. ... [E]very discovery contains
"an irrational element", or "a creative intuition" . . . In a similar way
Einstein speaks of the "search for those highly universal laws . . . from
which a picture of the world can be obtained by pure deduction. There is
no logical path", he says, "leading to these . . . laws. They can only be
reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love
("EinfÃ¼hlung") of the objects of experience." -
Popper, K.,
The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (1959 English ed., 2002 reprint,
London: Routledge Classics, pp. 8-9)

Imagination, intuition, creativity and even irrational leaps of logic are
necessary elements of any science worth the effort. The testing by the whole
of the scientific community that comes after the inspiration is what sets
science apart from so much else in human learning.

It is no coincidence that creationists have an abiding affinity for arguments
from authority and being told what to think.

- John (catshark) Pieret

Quote #4.13

[Evolution and Christianity are incompatible]

As we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in
the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless and without mercy . . The law of
Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution. - Sir Arthur Keith,
Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 15.

If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and
is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then,
although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as
Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote
the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the
hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics;
for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution,
both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without
mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method
of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes
"that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have
tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue
to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship
which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me,
that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the
conclusion I have come to is this:
the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of
evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two
laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until
the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr.
Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has
in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical
guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on
evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage
in a Christian haven.

In context this is not a discussion by Keith of the reality of evolution.
This is a discussion of founding ethical laws upon evolutionary thinking. It
is about committing the Naturalistic Fallacy and arguing directly from
"nature does this" (which it clearly does, for both Keith and Waddington) to
"this is right". Such was the argument that G. E. Moore named the
Naturalistic Fallacy for in 1904, and here Keith is merely reminding the
reader of this mistake.

Keith is moreover claiming that the ethical laws he thinks are right are
those based on "the law of Christ". What he wants destroyed is an ethical
system based on evolutionary biology -- given the limitations of what he knew
about that in the days before iterated Prisoner's Dilemma games, I can well
understand it. Most people wrongly thought that evolution necessarily involved
unremitting bloodshed and violence. Few if any biologists since the mid 60s
would think that is still true.

So what you really have here is the time-honoured dishonesty of "quote
mining": selectively using a part of a passage, without its context, to give
the reader a false impression.

- John S. Wilkins

Quote #4.14

[The fossil record doesn't support common descent of humans from ape-like creatures]

New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these
new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were
a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely
human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.
In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil
represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given
fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps.
- Henry Gee, 1999.
In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life.
(New York: The Free Press), page 32

The conventional portrait of . . . the history of life . . . tends to be
one of lines of ancestors and descendants. We concentrate on the events
leading to modern humanity, ignoring or playing down the evolution of other
animals; we prune away all branches in the tree of life except the one leading
to ourselves. ...

Because we see evolution in terms of a linear chain of ancestry and descent,
we tend to ignore the possibility that some of these ancestors might instead
have been side-branches; collateral cousins rather than direct ancestors. The
conventional linear view easily becomes a story in which features of humanity
are acquired in a sequence that can be discerned retrospectively; first an
upright stance, then a bigger brain, then the invention of toolmaking and
so on, with ourselves as the inevitable consequence."

The quoted text follows immediate from this. Clearly Gee is not saying that
evolution is a pre-existing story, but the popular and
non-paleontological views of human evolution is. And he is right - these
ideas took a long time to overcome. Stephen Jay Gould discusses this nicely
in his essay "Evolution by Walking" in
Dinosaur in a Haystack, 1995 (New York: Harmony Books).
(See also the essay in that book "Lucy on the earth in stasis").

Gee is able to distinguish between that which is fact, such as evolution,
and the various stories we tell, for all kinds of social or religious reasons,
about those facts. He then goes on to discuss how we can infer, without doubt,
based on shared properties, that he and his cat Fred have a common ancestor,
but that "we cannot hope to find her [the common ancestor] as a fossil; or if
we were to find her, we could never know for certain that we had done so [found
the common ancestor - of course we know we have found a fossil]", p37.

- John S. Wilkins

A brief broader examination of what Gee's thesis is might be useful.
First and foremost Gee objects that things that took millions of years and
the lives of many millions of individual organisms could possibly be reduced
to any kind of narrative. This is because the events of millions of years will
never reduce to paragraphs (or books) even if one could know it all. But of
course one can't know but a tiny fraction of what happened over those millions
of years.

The fossils found by the paleontologists are usually separated by many
thousands of years. Furthermore, simple probability combined with the knowledge
that evolutionary branches often branch suggests that those fossils will almost
certainly not form a direct lineage with each other or with us. Naturally,
simple popular presentations, such as a newspaper articles, tend to present
those fossils in a nice simple sequence. This is something that Gee
strongly objects to. And he is right. It goes against everything we know
about evolution: evolution is, as Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, a branching
shrub and not a linear ladder of progress. There is no way we
could really know that they made a nice simple sequence even if they did.

Given the ubiquitous chatter of journalists and headline writers
about the search for ancestors, and the discovery of missing links, it may come
as a surprise to learn that most professional palaeontologists do not think of
the history of life in terms of scenarios or narratives, and that they rejected
the storytelling mode of evolutionary history as unscientific more than thirty
years ago. Behind the scenes, in museums and universities, a quiet revolution
has taken place. (p. 5.)

That revolution was cladistics
[2], a study that can provide objective information
about the evolutionary pattern of life on Earth. Cladistics is completely
evolutionary and would not work if common descent is not true.

Gee's objection to narrative is not limited to just his objection to
declaring x fossil to be an ancestor to y fossil or z species.

. . .Nobody will ever know what caused the extinction of the
dinosaurs, because we weren't there to watch it happen. All we have are two
isolated observations -- the apparent absence of dinosaurs 65 million years
ago, and the evidence for a catastrophic phenomenon, such as the impact of
an asteroid, at the same time. There can be no certain link between the two.
Geologic time admits no narrative in which causes can be linked with effects.
(p. 2.)

This is an example to the degree that Gee applies his thesis. A better
example would be evolution of legs.

. . . [O]ur experience of tetrapods -- you, me, Fred the cat, cows, horses,
birds, and frogs -- tells us that limbs are excellent adaptations for moving
about on land. Also, our experience of present-day non-tetrapod vertebrates --
conventionally, the fishes -- tell us that these animals, adopted for life in
water, have fins instead of limbs. However, somewhere in time fishes did
indeed evolve legs and start to walk on land. This assumption, however
would be scientifically unjustified, because we can never know that it is
true. After all, we weren't there to watch it happen. However, given that
tetrapods plainly use their limb for this purpose today, does not this caution
seem extreme? It is not, because the fact that tetrapods' limbs are adapted for
walking now need say nothing about the reasons why limbs evolved in the
first place, more than 360 million years ago. (pp. 86-7.)

It turns out that a fossil aquatic fish complete with legs has been found,
thus tossing cold water on the idea that legs simply evolved for walking on
land.

- Mike Hopkins

[1] In an amusing (or tragic, depending
on your viewpoint) bit of multiple quote mining, the Discovery Institute not
only quotes Gee out of context but then quotes his complaint about what they
did out of context, putting their own spin on it. The DI does not have the
intellectual honesty to provide a link to Gee's complaint, despite quoting
from it, so here is
Gee's reaction. - Ed.

Quote #4.15

[Mutations cannot cause evolutionary change.]

The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration. - Sewall Wright,
"The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation,"
The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949).

The quote is on page 174, which is in the middle of a discussion of the
relative importance in evolution of three factors: mutation pressure, natural
selection and inbreeding/isolation. Here is the quote with the surrounding
context:

These statistical deductions from the Mendelian mechanism do not
in themselves give a general evaluation of the roles of the various factors in
evolution. They bring these factors under a common viewpoint, however, and make
it possible to form a judgement as to the conditions under which one or another,
or a combination, may dominate the process.

The conditions under which mutation-pressures, at rates like those usually
observed in the laboratory, are likely to dominate in the course of evolution
appear to be decidedly restricted. Even a very slight selective advantage
(e.g. of the order 10-4 or even 10-5) would usually be
more important. However, under extreme reduction of size of populations
(4Ns much less than 1)
selection-pressure becomes ineffective, while mutation-pressure is not affected.
The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a
tendency towards degeneration
(as may be seen from a casual survey of the effects of most of the
Drosophila mutations). Thus a trend towards degeneration of structures of
little or no use in small completely isolated populations (e.g. in caves or
small oceanic islands) may be due to mutation-pressure. Even here there are
possibilities of indirect control by selection which should not be ignored.

So, while mutations alone may be overall degenerative on their own, other
factors, such as selection, mitigate that trend. Wright makes this point by
continuing:

Great increases in mutation-rate at certain periods of the earth's history
have been postulated by various authors to explain various periods of rapid
evolutionary advance. The real effect would depend on the prevailing balance
with the other factors. Such a change in mutation-rate would probably mean
merely a degenerative trend unless the effects of all other influences were
correspondingly speeded up.

Wright is saying that no factor taken alone can effectively explain
evolutionary phenomena. A holistic, integrative approach is needed to
fully understand the evolutionary process.

Focusing only on Wright's reference to mutation in that section, as the
quote miners do, ignores the influence of the other factors, and steps
completely around Wright's point.

- Dave Wisker

Quote #4.16

[Fossil discoveries contradict claims about the evolution of man]

Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a
"missing link" is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of
the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable. - Henry Gee,
The Guardian, 11 July 2002

[Editor's Note: This particular quote is almost exclusively promoted by
"Harun Yahya", the pseudonym of
Adnan Oktar,
the head of
Bilim Arastirma Vakfi
(
Science Research Foundation), an Islamic creationist organization based in
Turkey. BAV maintains a number of slick websites and, as is common with this organization, the quote mine appears in several different articles. Despite the source, individual creationists of all backgrounds have picked up and used this quote, as we have seen in talk.origins.]

First of all, the ellipsis includes almost the entire article. The first part
of the quote appears in the first paragraph of the article and the second in the next-to-last.

Gee is discussing Sahelanthropus tchadensis, commonly known as "ToumaÃ¯",
a mostly complete cranium [1] found in Chad in 2001 that
is, at the very least, a specimen from at or around the time of the split between
humans and our closest relative, the chimpanzees. Why does Gee find it so
interesting? As he says:

It is a mixture of primitive and disconcertingly advanced traits.
The braincase has the same size and shape as a chimpanzee. The face, though,
is where the interest lies. Rather than having a projecting snout with large
canine teeth, the face is flat and the teeth are very small and human-like.
Strangest of all are the enormous brow-ridges. These are usually associated
with our own genus Homo, and are not otherwise seen in anything older than
about 2m years.

This leads Gee to ask:

Does this mean we have, at last, a sign that the roots of humanity
go directly back to the divergence with chimps, and that the legions of ape-men
and near-humans discovered over the past 70 years are a side-issue, irrelevant to
the main course of human evolution?

Gee's answer is "no". He maintains that ToumaÃ¯ is a "very small tip of a
very deep iceberg, just a sample of what might have been a huge diversity of
creatures living between four and 10m years ago." As was the case with the
quote mine of Gee previously addressed in Quote #4.14,
he is pointing out and arguing against the tendency, even among scientists, to
"see evolution in terms of a linear chain of ancestry and descent" instead of
as a "bush" with many collateral cousins. Thus, there are no "missing links",
not because evolution is false, but because simple chains are poor metaphors for
the prolific nature of life. Or, as Gee explains:

People and advertising copywriters tend to see human evolution
as a line stretching from apes to man, into which one can fit new-found fossils
as easily as links in a chain. Even modern anthropologists fall into this trap . . .

[W]e tend to look at those few tips of the bush we know about, connect them with
lines, and make them into a linear sequence of ancestors and descendants that never
was. But it should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link,
always shaky, is now completely untenable.

Gee, like any good scientist, is never satisfied and complains that
"we know desperately little of the course of human evolution". He will
doubtless continue to do so no matter how much we learn in his lifetime. But
the broad conclusions scientists have drawn regarding human descent are supported
by ample evidence, of which the "legions of ape-men and near-humans discovered
over the past 70 years" are just a part. Gee's understandable desire to know
more is no excuse to distort what he has said concerning what we do know.

Popper originally said that evolution (by which he meant natural selection)
was a "metaphysical research programme". Popper, unlike the logical positivists
he opposed, held that metaphysical programmes were an essential element of science,
and that without them, theories were effectively dead in the water.

The typical metaphysical research programme Popper gives in his
Unended Quest, in section 33, is metaphysical realism. He says that it,
"the view that there is a physical world to be discovered" [p. 151], is "a faith ...
without which practical action is hardly conceivable" [p. 150, quoting his own
Logic
of Scientific Discovery, section 79]. This is the very basis of
scientific research. So being a metaphysical research programme is not a bad
thing for him. He then says that he introduced this because

I intend to argue that the theory of natural selection is not a
testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program; and although
it is no doubt the best at present available, it can perhaps be slightly
improved [p. 151].

Now let's look at what he did then say in section 37. First he outlines what
the New Synthesis as he understands it consists of claiming: (1) An evolutionary
tree and history, (2) an evolutionary theory which explains this, consisting of
(a) heredity, (b) variation, (c) natural selection (NS), (d) variability
(which can be controlled by NS). He is confused here, I think, but it is clear
that NS is one aspect of the theory that underlies explanation of evolution
itself [p. 170]. He is using the term "Darwinism" for this set of explanatory
schemes.

Then he says why he thinks "Darwinism" is metaphysical and a research
programme. "It is metaphysical because it is not testable." Darwinism does not
predict the evolution of variety, he says. Therefore it cannot explain it. "At
best it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable conditions". But
it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what favourable conditions
are -- except that, in their presence, a variety of forms will emerge." Then
he raises the tautology claim, saying "To say that a species now living is
adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological." Almost, note.
Then he says that "Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists
as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival: there
is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this." [p. 171]

Note that Popper allows there is a possibility of testing NS, and that it
is almost a tautology, not an actual one. We mustn't make Popper say more than he did.

Then he says this:

And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it,
our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to
explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin,
it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection.
Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very
practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment
(such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests
the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in
detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all
that. [pp. 171-172].

So it is a theory of science, it does help research, and it is to be preferred,
says Popper, even before his recantation.

Moreover, he notes that theism as an explanation of adaptation "was worse
than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate
explanation had been reached" [p. 172]. He also continues to outline what he
sees are the other virtues and predictions of Darwin's theory (again, he means
natural selection). It "suggests" variety of forms of life; it "predicts"
gradualness of change, accidental mutations and that [friends of Gould will
like this] "we should expect evolutionary sequences of the random walk type"
[p. 173]. Thereafter Popper discusses his own view or elaboration of "Darwinism".

Popper's claims were pretty mild. He most certainly did not think Darwinism
was false or useless in science, as we have seen. He was attempting to make of
Natural Selection (and NS only) something like an explanatory scheme that directs
and suggests further research. I think, in that regard, he was correct. NS
is an explanatory scheme that may or may not apply to a given case of evolution.
Whether the scheme works depends on the individual facts of the matter. You
can't disprove an explanatory scheme except to show that it is logically
inconsistent, which NS isn't, by creationists' own admission.

Note that he claimed that adaptation or fitness equaled survival value. This
is not true. Fisher in 1930, revised in 1958, said that fitness (he didn't use
this word) was "reproductive investment". That is a rather different claim - it
means that what counts is the number of progeny over time, not the survival of
the individual organism. A short-lived organism might still have a major success
in number of progeny. Also, Popper didn't really deal with selection taking place
between members of the same species, but used the older confused terminology of
selection taking place of species, or "for" the species, rather than individual
organisms or genetic variations.

So even before the recantation, where Popper said:

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the
theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a
recantation. [1]

he had not said what creationists claim he said.

Popper's influence on biologists is arguable. It seems to me that he was
immediately employed by biologists to validate what they were doing anyway.
One of the ironies of science and philosophy is that those who employed him the
most -- taxonomists -- did so in support of an activity that Popper almost
never talks about and clearly thinks with Rutherford is a form of stamp
collecting -- classification. [2]

- John S. Wilkins

[1] Popper, Karl. 1978. "Natural selection and
the emergence of mind". Dialectica 32: 339-355. (The relevant potion
of the article can be found in this
excerpt.)

In his Dialectica article, Popper does in fact
explicitly recant his previous opinion on natural selection, and
affirm that he considers it testable. On pages 343 and 344 of the
article he reviews the opinions of various evolutionary theorists
on the nature of natural selection, as well as the one he himself
had previously held. Then at the top of page 345 he writes:

I still believe that natural selection works in this
way as a research programe. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind
about the testability and the logical status of the theory of
natural selection; and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a
recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the
understanding of the nature of natural selection.

After one and a half pages of discussion he gives the following
summary (p.346).

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated
that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only
testable but it turns out to be not universally true. There seem to
be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering
the random character of the variations on which natural selection
operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not
all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection
alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research
programme to show how far natural selection can possibly be held
responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioural
programme.

- David Wilson

It should be emphasized that Popper was referring to "Darwinism". Not to be
confused with evolution. And yes, he clearly did mean natural selection, as can be
gleaned easily from his retraction. Also, though this seems ambiguous, I read it
to mean the claim that natural selection explains every feature of evolution,
including diversity. This may arise from the penchant in the middle of the last
century for labeling every large group an "adaptive radiation", implying that
diversity did indeed arise through natural selection. This is notoriously
difficult to test, because even random speciation models can produce huge
disparities in number of species between sister groups. The only real hope
we have of testing such hypotheses is in cases of multiple origins of the
same character trait, in which case we can ask whether the group having that
trait has more species than its sister without the trait significantly more
often than chance would allow.

But natural selection, as an individual explanation for individual events,
is not too difficult to test provided we observe the event in progress, or are
able to do real tests of the selective value of different alleles, as with the
peppered moth case. Selection can also leave a signature in the genome, giving
us another chance to observe past selection, provided it was recent enough.

I think this ambiguity, natural selection as universal explanation vs.
explanation for individual cases, may have arisen from Popper's own confusion
about just what he was talking about.

- John Harshman

Quote #4.18

[DNA is software]

DNA is like a computer program but far, far
more advanced than any software we've ever created. - Bill Gates

Bill Gates has said, "DNA is similar to a software program" but
more complex . . .

The truncated version
apparently originated in an article by Stephen C. Meyer, "DNA and
Other Designs" in the journal First
Things that can be found in many places, including the
following: Catholic
Culture;
The Center for Science and Culture and Access
Research Network. This quote mine has been promoted quite a
bit recently by intelligent designer advocates. I found an early
use of it by Stephen C. Meyer, Discovery Institute Fellow and
young earth creationist. He used it this way, "If, as Bill Gates
has said, "DNA is similar to a software program" but more
complex, it makes sense, on analogical grounds, to consider
inferring that it too had an intelligent source." in "DNA and
Other Designs" Stephen Meyer First Things 102, April 1, 2000 but
without citation.

The correct quote was used in 2004 by "Harun Yahya", the
pseudonym of Adnan Oktar, the head of
Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (
Science Research Foundation), an Islamic
creationist organization based in Turkey. As far as I could
learn, Meyer did not correctly quote Gates until just a few
months ago. "As Bill Gates has noted, 'DNA is like a computer
program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever
created.'" Stephen C. Meyer, "Not By Chance" National Post, (Canada) December 1, 2005.

In rapid succession the quote was used in several other
publications targeted at politically conservative, and religious
audiences. These included "What Is
Intelligent Design?" by Casey Luskin of the Discovery
Institute in Human Events, and "
Jefferson, Marx and Intelligent Design" by L. Baer for the
Reverend Sun Myung Moon's newspaper The Washington
Times, and "
DNA Evidence of an Intelligent Designer" by Tom Ashby in the
Huntington News. It is nearly certain that these later
authors have not read Bill Gates' book for themselves, they all
use the mistaken wording used by Steve Meyer's original
article.

They all claim that this is somehow "evidence" in favor of
IDC, but is it? Bill Gates wrote the sentence (or one nearly like
it), but he wrote it in chapter about education and the Internet,
and not in the least related to evolution or creationism. Chapter
9 of his book is titled "Education: The Best Investment, and the
context of the quoted sentence is how Gates realized that biology
was an interesting topic to study. The paragraph follows:

We have all had teachers who made a difference. I had
a great chemistry teacher in high school who made his subject
immensely interesting. Chemistry seemed enthralling compared to
biology. In biology, we were dissecting frogs - just hacking them
to pieces, actually - and our teacher didn't explain why. My
chemistry teacher sensationalized his subject a bit and promised
that it would help us understand the world. When I was in my
twenties, I read James D. Watson's "Molecular Biology of the
Gene" and decided my high school experience had misled me. The
understanding of life is a great subject. Biological information
is the most important information we can discover, because over
the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human
DNA is like a
computer program but far, far more advanced than any software
ever created. It seems amazing to me now that one great
teacher made chemistry endlessly fascinating while I found
biology totally boring. (Gates, The Road Ahead, Penguin: London, Revised, 1996 p.
228)

There you have it -- Gates is not investing a great deal of
attention to the facts of genetics -- he is talking about his
experiences as a high schooler and the importance of good
teachers. Further, there is nothing in the sentence or the idea
behind it that attacks science or backs supernaturalism.

- Gary S. Hurd, Ph.D. *

It should be noted that this use of the Gates' quote commits
the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam or the
appeal to
authority. Gates may well know a lot about software, but he
is in no position to assess how much DNA is, if at all, like a
computer program. In point of fact, anyone who read the above
passage would doubt that Gates had even a high school level
understanding of biology and anyone interested in honesty would
make that clear if they still wanted to use the quote.

- John (catshark) Pieret

* This is adapted, with the kind permission
of Dr. Hurd, from a letter
to the editor in response to Tom Ashby's opinion piece in the
Huntington News referred to above.